Points to Ponder:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. [H. L. Mencken] 

Revisiting Common "Traditionalist" Complaints About Vatican II:

My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...

Bad things about Vatican II

Here we go again.

1. The altar turned into a “table” without a consecrated altar stone

The first part is simply (to put it bluntly) pure ignorance. The Greek term for "altar" is thysiastelirion, which literally means, "sacrifice table." An altar is a table. Fixed altars still have altar stones while portable altars at times no longer do. The idea of all altars having consecrated altar stones was a very Western idea. It is not one our Eastern brethren share but if this is "bad" then you are claiming that you think their usages are "bad" or "inferior" to western usages. 

2. The introduction of Mass facing the people.

To quote from a friend who covered this point in a traditionalist themed project he and I worked on over 20 years ago:

At the Last Supper, which way was Jesus facing? Every representation of this in the history of Christian art has him facing the Apostles not away from them. At a Passover meal, this would have been considered the polite way to act. Older Catholic scholarship tried to defend an apostolic origin for the Priest facing away from the congregation during the Consecration, but we honestly don’t know when this custom started. Fr. Jungmann on page 50 of his short book, The Mass states that there was diversity of practice in both East and West on this matter until the 4th Century. Most likely facing with the people became an entrenched as a custom as worship became more formalized and the Eucharist was performed using the usual conventions of other sacrificial rites from the surrounding cultures. There is nothing wrong with this practice, but there is also no reason to require it.{1}

And from the work of the Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol whose 1934 work The Mass of the Western Rites was part of my apologetical repertoire back in my message board days{2}:

Today, as the altar usually has a retable and a tabernacle, the priest when standing before it turns his back to the people; so that when he greets them with 'Dominus vobiscum' he is obliged to turn round. The Bishop would be hidden on his 'cathedra' at the back of the apse, and could hardly follow the ceremonies, therefore his throne, as well as the stalls of the clergy, have been moved to places before the altar. But if we wish to understand the ancient positions, it will help us to remember that at that time the altar was a 'table' (hence its name of 'mensa') of wood or stone, forming either a solid block or else raised on four feet, but in any case without a tabernacle; so that the officiating priest would face towards the people, as he does to-day at 'San Clemente.' In our own churches, of course, he officiates on the other side of the altar; the Gospel side being the left and that of the Epistle the right. As we explain elsewhere, another consideration has brought about these changes: the practice of turning in prayer towards the East, the region of that light which is the image of Christ, Who Himself came from the East. The question of the orientation of churches was an important one in Christian architecture from the fourth-twelfth centuries.{3}

3. Concelebration

Concelebration was among the recommendations of the Eastern Melkites at the Second Vatican Council. To wit:

Here again is a desirable restoration inspired by the example of the Eastern Church. I likewise applaud without reservation this felicitous innovation, whose benefits will quickly make themselves felt. I shall merely take the liberty of making the following remarks:

a) 'The faculty to concelebrate is restricted to specific circumstances,' although it is concelebration which is the rule, and individual celebration the exception. The Eucharistic sacrifice is above all the sacrament of unity, and in the first place of priestly unity. There should be a truly serious reason for a priest to refuse to concelebrate with his brothers. Here again there would have to be a reversal of perspective. No limit should be placed on concelebration other than the necessity of assuring other Masses in the course of the day for the good of the faithful.

b) 'The concelebrants are only permitted to wear the alb and the stole.' We think that the concelebrants should wear all their sacred vestments and participate intimately in the liturgical action, which is simply presided over by the principal celebrant, notwithstanding the recent practice of certain non-Byzantine Eastern clergy. Moreover, it is not necessary that all concelebrants say all the prayers at the same time. Concelebration is not a simultaneous gathering of several individual celebrations, but rather a common action in which each one plays his role.

c) 'Only the ordinary of the place has the right to permit concelebration, on a case by case basis, and to set the number of concelebrants.' Again, this is an excessive limitation of an act that is not only more legitimate but even more consistent with tradition. Priests should be able to concelebrate as often as they wish, as long as this does not interfere with their pastoral duties, and to do so in as large a number as they choose.

d) Finally, 'concelebrants are permitted for good reason to receive an honorarium for a concelebrated Mass, just as for an individual celebration.' That is self-evident, for a concelebrated Mass is no less a Mass than a Mass celebrated individually. It is even surprising that the Roman Curia believed that it had to intervene, in the 18th century, to affirm this obvious fact. However, this affirmation should not be based on the assumption that in concelebration each priest celebrates a distinct sacrifice. In concelebration there are not several Masses, but one single Mass offered and celebrated in its entirety by several priests.{4}

Concelebration is eminently traditional and has always been prevalent in Eastern worship. It was once prevalent in the west too but fell out of usage over time. Bringing this custom back to the west could only be considered "bad" by someone either unfamiliar with Church history, contemptuous of the Eastern liturgical customs, or both. 

4. Mass celebrated in the vernacular.

Vernacular languages were used for all of the early liturgies. A wider use of the vernacular churchwide was among the recommendations of the Eastern Melkites at the Second Vatican Council. To wit:

We are resolute adherents of a much wider use of living languages, even in the celebration of the Mass. Whatever may be the advantages of liturgical Latin—and they are numerous—they should, it seems to us, be outweighed by the irreparable disadvantage that it is not understood by 99% of the faithful who participate in the sacred action. In the light of this painful consideration, we think that the example of the Eastern Church, which strongly advocates the use of language that can be understood by the people, should serve as a model. We fear above all that the fervor with which certain groups defend the almost exclusive use of Latin is not inspired by purely pastoral or ecclesiastical considerations, not to mention those who claim that Latin is 'the language of the Church,' forgetting that the Latin Church is only one of the Churches within the Catholic Church, and that latinism and Catholicism are in no sense identical.{5}

I am sure they and their other Eastern brethren will be glad to know they practice "bad", "lesser", or "defective" forms of worship.

5. Mass celebrated exclusively in a raised tone of voice.

As they do in Eastern liturgies. I am sure our Eastern brethren will be glad to know they practice "bad" forms of worship for not whispering during their liturgy. 

6. Mass separated into the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 edition:

The Eucharist was always celebrated at the end of a service of lessons, psalms, prayers, and preaching, which was itself merely a continuation of the service of the synagogue. So we have everywhere this double function; first a synagogue service Christianized, in which the holy books were read, psalms were sung, prayers said by the bishop in the name of all (the people answering 'Amen' in Hebrew, as had their Jewish forefathers), and homilies, explanations of what had been read, were made by the bishop or priests, just as they had been made in the synagogues by the learned men and elders (e.g., Luke 4:16-27). This is what was known afterwards as the Liturgy of the Catechumens. Then followed the Eucharist, at which only the baptized were present.{6}

The old Liturgy of the Catechumens is now referred to as the Liturgy of the Word which is followed by the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This division is very ancient and was a restoration in the west of a practice once common to them and has always been to liturgies of the east. But I am sure once again our Eastern brethren will be glad to know they practice "bad" or otherwise "lesser" or "defective" forms of worship.

7. The profanation of the sacred vessels

This is a vague statement. Without specifics, it is useless tradbabble.

8. Leavened bread as the matter of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist

Leavened bread has always been used as matter in the Eucharists of the east.{7} Let me guess, you did not know that did you? Can you see how an Easterner would feel insulted by such a claim?

9. The administration of Holy Communion by lay people

To quote from a friend who covered this point in a traditionalist themed project he and I worked on over 20 years ago:

When a duly appointed lay minister in the course of a sacred rite lawfully handles the Holy Eucharist there is no sign of disrespect. All of God’s people are consecrated to him in Baptism and are worthy to touch Christ’s Body and Blood. Once again we see the Integrists over-reacting to a practice that they do not like. Their personal dislikes are elevated to the status of objective moral faults in others. The opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas on limiting the handling of the host to 'the consecrated' is fine, but St. Thomas himself would be the first to admit that obedience to the hierarchy in this matter would override such scruples. Properly trained ministers of the Eucharist acting in accordance with Church law are no affront to God.{8}

And again:

If the laity in the Early Church were permitted to distribute Communion outside of Mass under their own recognizance, what problem is there with them doing it during Mass under the direct supervision of the priest? This type of illogical comment is typical of the over clericalization of the Integrist’s view of the Church.{9}

10. Communion admnistered in the hand

I dealt in detail with this already.{10} Repeating debunked complaints as if they are still viable is disingenuous. Communion in the hand was not uncommon for much of the first millennium. The principles outlined in point nine apply here as well.

11. The reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in a wall[instead of a tabernacle] 

Where are these supposed "walls" where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved? Every church I have ever been in has a tabernacle of some form or another. As far as placement goes{11}, the placement of the tabernacle on the main altar is a recent innovation dating from the late Middle Ages. It was not done uniformly in Catholic Churches until the Counter-reformation. 

12. Liturgical readings made by women

The Second Vatican Council in settling definitively the degrees of the sacrament of Order to bishops, priests, and deacons relegated the minor orders (including lector) and their functions to sacramentals.{12} As the minor orders have no participation in the sacrament of Order, these ministries can be said to be rooted in baptism rather than as stepping stones toward the ordained priesthood. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with a lector being a woman.

13. The administration of Holy Communion to the sick by lay people

See my response to point nine above. The same principles apply.

Notes:

{1} The project serves an important purpose twenty off years ago when it was published and I really appreciated the work of my friends who contributed to it. However, my own contributions to the work read wincingly to these older eyes in the tone and presentation I utilized. I was too emotionally invested in the project for a couple of reasons and it showed in my contributions. For this reason, while I am quoting verbatim material from it here, I will not actually link to the project itself in this posting.

{2} From 1998 through 2003.

{3} Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol: From The Mass of the Western Rites (circa 1934)

{4} His Beatitude Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh: Intervention At the Second Vatican Council (circa Oct. 23, 1962) as cited in The Melkite Church At the Council Chapter 3 (circa 1967)

{5} His Beatitude Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh: Intervention At the Second Vatican Council (circa Oct. 23, 1962) as cited in The Melkite Church At the Council Chapter 3 (circa 1967)

{6} The Catholic Encyclopedia: From the Article Liturgy (circa 1913)

{7} Usually it is the Easterners accusing Westerners of departing from ancient practice in their use of unleavened bread as both west and east used leavened bread originally.

{8} See footnote one.

{9} See footnote one.

{10} To clarify, I had covered this subject in detail with this person previously using excerpts from my material in a cowritten essay The Red Herring of Communion in the Hand published online twenty years ago.

{11} Because I know the next gripe to follow.

{12} For this reason, Pope Paul VI suppressed the minor orders with the Apostolic Letter Ministeria Quaedam in 1972.